THE PRESIDENT: If your're thinking, Mr. Hart, to reestablish the integrety of the affidavits, I think your examination would probably be confined to those affidavits, don't you think so?
MR. HART: I first thought to establish, Your Honor, that the witness does not deny that as of the time of the events mentioned in the affidavits the witness did have knowledge of those events. In other words, when the witness, as the assistant for Himmler, sent a letter referring to the slaughter of a great many people - thousands of tubercular Poles--that he did at that time know of the slaughter of those people.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I follow you all right, except that the affidavits introduced in this case do not refer to that, do they?
MR. HART: No, sir, not--Yes, sir, the slaughter of the tubercular Poles is an issue in this case. It is in evidence before the Tribunal; the actual mention of the slaughter of the tubercular Poles by this witness in he affidavits--no, there is no such mention in the affidavits here concerned.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that is just the point.
MR. HART: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Ought not your inquiry to be directed to the particular affidavits which you are asking the court to accept as true?
MR. HART: Very well, sir, I will so limit my inquiry.
DR. SEINE: (ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT POHL): Your Honor, I am hearing for the first time from the prosecution that the treatment of the tubercular Poles is supposed to be one of the points indicted in this trial. So far I have not been in a position to see even the least bit of that in the document books.
THE PRESIDENT: it isn't referred to in this witness' affidavit, so, therefore, not in controversy as far as he is concerned, and Mr. Hart concedes that point.
Q. Witness, you say that you signed these affidavits because of the state of your health.
What do you mean by that? What state of health would cause you to sign these affidavits?
A. What I mean by that is the effects of the physical deterioration in the internee camp in Fallingbostel. I only weighed 44 kilograms, roughly 90 pounds, and during the interrogations I was being fed double rations in order to regain my old weight and physically I was restored. However, the psychological effects had not been overcome as yet, by far. And when the documents were shown to me, I did not have the possibility to judge them critically. In other words, I could not tell the difference between the things that I knew from my own recollection at the time when they actually happened and what could be considered deductions based on the documents introduced and also based on the explanations which were given to me by the interrogation so that apart from those things that are correct, there are also erroneous statements in those affidavits.
Q. Was it entirely the state of your health that caused you to change your mind, or did you have the assistance of any of the defense counsel?
A. I did not quite understand the question.
Q. Was it entirely the state of your health, that is to say, was the improved condition of your health the reason for your change of mind or, on the other hand, did you have the assistance of any defense counsel in suggesting such a change in the statements of your affidavits?
A. As a result of the interrogations and the introduction of the documents, I went through another physical decay here which reached a climax in February or March.
Q. My question to you is, did the mere improvement of your health since the time you signed these affidavits up to now, cause you to change your mind, or, on the other hand, did you have the assistance of any defense counsel in Tribunal No. 1 or before this Tribunal.-
THE PRESIDENT: Tell him what you mean by "changing his mind," Mr. Hart; that is the confusing part.
Q. Did the defense counsel in Tribunal No. 1, or here before Tribunal No. 2, suggest to you that you change your affidavits?
A. If one reads those affidavits in peace and in an improved state of health and then one considers all the documents which were introduced in the medical trial, then there must be some sort of a correction at one or another point, particularly if now was wrong.
Q. My question was whether or not the defense counsel in the medical trial, before Tribunal No. 1, or the defense counsel in this trial--made the suggestion to you that you should change the statements in these affidavits.
A. No defense counsel had to tell me such a thing. That results
Q. In other words, you state that defense counsel did not make the suggestion to you?
A. All I can say is that my defense counsel did in my trial did give me advice as things usually necessitate. However, I was not told in any way to change my opinion, particularly since my defense counsel does not know the actual conditions as they were.
Q. Referring to Prosecution's Exhibit No. 185, which is the first affidavit concerning which Dr. Seidl spoke to you, do you or do you not deny that as of the time of the facts mentioned in that affidavit you knew of your own knowledge those favts?
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Hart, your question is very difficult, even to an English speaking person. It calls for a pretty close scrutiny. May I suggest that you pick out some facts in the affidavit and ask him if he knew about those by way of illustration. That is typical of what you want to know, is it not?
MR. HART; Yes sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Select one or two facts from the affidavit and ask him whether he knew of those facts at the time he signed the affidavit.
Q. Did you or did you not know that the concentration camp prisoners who were to be selected for the medical experiments were to be selected by the Defendant Oswal Pohl?
A. I did not know that. All I had probably received was the order of Himmler and I had to write it to Pohl and, in other words, to forward his original order.
Q. Well, didn't the Himmler order say that Pohl was to select those prisoners for the purpose of the experiments?
A. I cannot tell that any more at the present moment.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you send Himmler's order to Pohl?
WITNESS: I assume that.
THE PRESIDENT: Why do you assume it?
WITNESS: I assume that the order of Himmler was to that effect and, if it read the way I think it read, then I did send it on to Pohl. What I am talking about right now as an assumption on my part, is only that the whole thing can be found in the files and actually occurred.
Q. In other words, Witness, if I understand you correctly, you mean to say that if I show you an order today of Himmler's stating that Pohl was to make the selection of such prisoners and if I show you that you transmitted that order to Pohl, you do not deny at the time you transmitted the order you knew that Pohl was to make the selection of such prisoners?
A. If I knew that at the time I cannot tell you today.
Q. Exactly. In other words, the only thing you are saying to us is this, that in such an instance as of today you no longer remember the fact; is that correct?
A I cannot recall details and facts because too many incidents went through my hands but only for my signature.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. Do you have this order of Himmler's which purports to have been sent to Pohl?
MR. HART: No sir, I don't have it in front of me.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, is it in the record? Has it been introduced in evidence?
MR. HART: I don't refer to any particular order, your Honor. I am trying to establish the fact that this witness is only testifying that he doesn't remember today.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it is rather important to know whether Pohl get this order. Pohl had denied getting it. Now, why not show this witness the order? It purports to have come from him. Then ask him, "Did you send this order to Pohl? Does the distribution memorandum show that Pohl got a copy?" That is what we are interested in. Is there such an order in the record?
MR. HART: I think your Honor first referred to the order. I was picking up a statement in the witness's affidavit, being Exhibit 185, to the effect that prisoners to be experimented on were selected by Pohl.
THE PRESIDENT: That's right. He says that he made that statement in the affidavit because Himmler's order had directed that that be done. Isn't true?
MR. HART: I'm not able to place my hand on the order at this moment, your Honor. I'll see if it is in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. Go ahead.
DR. HOFFMANN: Your Honor, I should like to use this brief interval to suggest that these documents also be shown to the witness, that is, these documents that are mentioned here, particularly his affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: I think that's a fair suggestion? You are questioning him about his knowledge of the contents of a certain exhibit. Why not put the exhibit in his hands or a translation of it?
MR. HART: If your Honor please, I don't recall that I mentioned any exhibit.
THE PRESIDENT: 185.
MR. HART: That is the affidavit, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, that is what we are talking about. You are asking him what he knows about the affidavit, Exhibit 185.
MR. HART: He has already repudiated that same affidavit in answering the question of Dr. Seidl.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, shown it to him.
MR. HART: We don't have the German of that, your Honor.
THE TRIBUNAL: (JUDGE MUSMANNO): MR. Hart, I think you go pretty far when you say the defendant repudiated his affidavit. It doesn't appear to the Tribunal, at least to this member of the Tribunal, that he repudiated it. He stated that in looking at the affidavit now or having it called to his attention that he recalls that the statements made therein were based upon documents which were shown to him at the time. That does not necessarily mean a repudition.
MR. HART: That is exactly the point I want to make clear, your Honor.
I therefore have no further questions.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE MUSMANNO): Dr. Seidl has.
DR. SEIDL: I do have a few questions.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q. Witness, has your own defense counsel at any time tried to move you to change anything in your affidavit?
THE PRESIDENT: Ho said no, he has answered that. He said no.
DR. SEIDL: Your Honor, in order to say it quite frankly, the prosecution reproaches me or possible also my colleagues that we actually induced the witness to repudiate certain things he has said to the prosecution; and I'm not in a position to let this reproach rest on me.
THE PRESIDENT: But the witness said no.
DR. SEIDL: Then I have another question to the witness.
Q. Did I in Military Tribunal Number I ever talk to you about the trial?
THE PRESIDENT: The witness says no.
DR. SEIDL: Upon this question he did not reply at all, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, he did.
DR. SEIDL: However, he did not answer one of the prosecution's questions to that effect.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, ask him again. The answer will be "No".
Q. Did I at any time, Witness, talk with you about the trial before Military Tribunal I or about this trial here?
A. No.
Q. Did I at any time talk with you about any affidavit which you signed?
A. No.
Q. The prosecution during your preliminary interrogations showed various documents to you. Do you know if the prosecution ever put all those documents before you which were a part of that particular group of experiments; for example, part of the freezing experiments? Or do you know or can you assume that only selection was put before you? Do you have any reasons from which you can actually deduct that?
A. I cannot judge that very well, I believe that almost everything, was submitted to me, but I don't know.
Q. And the interrogator did make certain statements about those documents, did he not, which had as their aim to connect those documents with each other? And apparently, in a particular sense which would help the prosecution; is that correct?
A. Yes, I'd like to assume that.
DR. SEIDL: I have no further questions.
EXAMINATION BY THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE PHILLIPS):
Q. Witness, you were quite familiar with Himmler, were you not?
A. Familiar? What do you mean, "familiar"?
Q. Close to him and connected with him in the war, in his office, and so forth.
A. Well, I was at his disposal almost daily for official business.
Q. That's exactly what I meant.
A. Yes.
Q. And you knew Himmler's policies very well, did you not?
A. I cannot tell you that for certain because my field of work was limited on principle to the Allgemeine SS only; and Himmler had various fields of work.
Q. I didn't ask you anything about that. I asked you if you didn't know the general policies of Himmler in regard to his work and the work in the office in which you were connected.
A. As far as it concerned my field of work, surely.
Q. Was Himmler very much interested in human experiments for the benefit of the Luftwaffe and the benefit of the army?
A. I cannot answer this question from my own knowledge and utterances made to me personally, and I can only tell you what I know from his letters. According to those letters he had a particular interest in those questions; and he always spoke personally with the doctors concerned with those problems
Q. He was interested in them, then. Now, why couldn't you answer that to start with? You know that.
A. He was interested in it, yes.
Q. He told you he was interested and had you write letters to doctors about these experiments?
A. What I did in this case was simply part of what he himself discussed with the doctors and what he himself wrote to those doctors. The letters which I signed were mostly dictated by him personally or the main points had been written down by him.
Q. Well, it took a long time to say yes. Just answer the questions more closely, please. You could have answered that in one word. Did you know that Himmler himself had to give the authority before experimental subjects could be used from concentration camps in the medical experiments?
A. I do not know that.
Q. You didn't know that?
A. No.
Q. I don't care to ask you anything else, then. That's all.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any other questions to this witness?
DR. SEIDL: I have no further questions, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Lat call--any other counsel? The Marshal will return this witness to Tribunal I.
DR. SEIDL: Your Honor, at the present moment I first had the intention of calling in SS Obergruppenfuehrer Juettner, whose appearing as a witness has been granted by the Tribunal; and I planned to interrogate him now. However, the witness is outside of Nurnberg at the present time, in one of the outside camps. I would, therefore, appreciate it if I could reserve for myself the right to have him brought before this Tribunal for his examination later, after his return. The examination will probably not last very long. Furthermore, I should like to reserve the right to introduce a few more documents at a later date. The document book is only being prepared now. As far as the rest is concerned, this examination of Dr. Rudolf Brandt ends for the defendant Oswald Pohl for the present.
THE PRESIDENT: On the list of witnesses submitted to the Court this morning the name of August Frank appears. Do you not intend to call him?
DR. SEIDL: That is the defendant August Frank, who is the second defendant sitting in the dock.
THE PRESIDENT: He is listed here as a witness. You are not expecting to call him as your witness?
DR. SEIDL: He is not my witness, but he will be examined by Dr. Rauschenbach, his own defense counsel as a witness, on his own behalf.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. With the exception of the witness--what was his name, the witness who is in the camp?
DR. SEIDL: SS Obergruppenfuehrer Hans Juettner; he was the Chief of the SS Main Leadership Office. I shall be able to forego all the other witnesses, although I shall reserve the right to submit an affidavit from one or two of those witnesses at a later date.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. The defendant Pohl rests his case with certain exceptions, with the right to call one more witness, Juettner, and to submit an unspecified number of documents. Very well.
DR. SEIDL: Yes, Your Honor.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Dr. Rauschenbach for the defendant August Frank. Your Honor, I would appreciate if the defendant August Frank be placed in the witness dock.
AUGUST FRANK, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE MUSSMANO: Will you please raise your right hand and repeat after me: I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth, and will withhold and add nothing. (The witness repeated the oath) You may be seated.
BY DR. RAUSCHENBACH:
Q Witness, will you tell me in a few short terms your curriculum vitae up to 1933?
A I was born on 5 April 1898 in Augsburg in Bavaria as the fifth child of my family. My father who worked as a simple railroad man and through plain diligence, climbed as high as an official for a railroad, and was a man of a few words, but due to this hard struggle for life in order to feed a family of nine people, his health suffered very early. After the fourth grade, I already had to break up my studies in order to start some sort of a practical profession in order to be able to withdraw from my father some of the support. Right in the middle of my training in which I was being trained in business the world war broke out. Up to 1916 I was still working as commercial clerk, and in 1916 I became a soldier. Then for a period of twentythree months I was at the Western Front without any interruption as a front soldier. In 1918 I returned after the end of the war as a NCO. In 1918 my oldest brother was killed in action, and that is how I became the head of the family, so to say according to age. In 1919 my father died. In 1920 I had decided to join the Bavarian Country Police because the bad times did not make the commercial profession very promising. In 1923 I got married, and in the following years, that is, from 1923 till about 1927 I may say through sacrifices in both material and physical respects, I completed my education, which I had to give up Court No. II, Case No. 4.due to the difficult situation at the time, and by studying at night I was able to complete it almost entirely.
Then up to 1930 I was a member of the Bavarian Landespolizei, the Bavarian Land and Country Police, and I resigned from that position after twelve years of service.
Q Do I understand from your statement correctly that before 1933 you were in the Army for twelve years, and after that you served another nine and one-half years in the Bavarian Landespolizei?
A Yes, that is correct, in the Bavarian Land and Country Police. It was organized in a military manner, and it was being lead by Oberst von Seisser, who was a very important man, and who became known later on when he eliminated the Hitler Putsch. That is when I started my military career. I received a full training in all branches of military administration, and, I had the possibility to acquaint myself with that particular branch of the service.
Q Why was it that you resigned in 1930 from the Landespolizei?
A I did that for two reasons. The first reason was the fact that I as Police Secretary held the rank of a Lieutenant, and my pay amounted to only one-hundred seventy marks per month. As we said in Germany, that was not enough to live on and was too much to die on. The second reason was that the prospects for advancement were so to say zero, because that unit of police amounted to 10,000 men, and therefore, they only had a small number of positions and unfortunately these positions were occupied by young people. In other words, I could figure it out very well, that practically speaking that to await a promotion from lieutenant to a captain, I would either have gray hairs, or no hair at all, because I could not possibly have a promotion within the next twenty years. Then I resigned from the Bavarian Landespolizei, and due to having renounced this career, I received a compensation or compensation in the amount of ten-thousand marks.
Q Did you have a better life when you were a civilian?
A Yes, yes indeed. In the first year I organized a business that flourished. However, unfortunately I had the misfortune in 1931, Court No. II, Case No. 4.the time of the deepest depression to become involved in it.
I had money owing to me. I could not get it because those who borrowed it were under difficulty themselves. That was why in the Autumn of 1931 I just the same as some other German business managers, I had to become bankrupt, and to give up my business.
Q Were you unemployed then?
A No, I was not unemployed. I never in my life received compensation for unemployment, but I always tried with all means at my disposal to get through both for myself and my family. That is why in the Winter I was represented to firms, and I was travelling salesman, and in the Summer I was teacher of calisthenics, and also I was a lifeguard, and that is how I earned my living.
Q When did you join the SS?
A I joined the Allgemeine-SS in May 1932. A little later on, I became full-time member.
Q How was it that you joined the SS on a full-time basis?
A I joined the Allgemeine-SS due to various reasons. The general situation of the suffering I saw around me, the million of unemployed, the number which kept increasing; the danger of communism; all those things induced me to join the Allgemeine-SS. However, when I joined it on a full time basis there were other reasons, namely, for professional reasons. I learned from a SS-comrade that the Economic Office at the time in Munich was looking for experts in Army Administration, or, generally speaking for the administration. As I thought myself qualified for that position I wrote a letter to them, or rather I applied for that position to Obergruppenfuehrer Schneider. He was Pohl's precedessor. In April 1933 he actually employed me as a full time SS-man. I might add here for limitation that so far as the pay was concerned, I was only getting paid three marks a day at the beginning of the time.
Q Why was it that you were simply an SS-man although you had been a soldier for twelve years already, had resigned from the Landes Court No. II, Case No. 4.polizei with a rank of an officer?
A Yes, the reason was the following: When I joined the SS I went to see SS-Brigadefuehrer -- I can not recall the name at the present moment -- yes, SS-Brigadefuehrer Seidt-Dittmarsch, he was the commander of my particular unit, he was the chief or representative of the SS Main Offices, of which the Administration Office was part. When, I applied for that job I admitted that one of my brother-in-laws was Jewish, so he had certain misgivings to confirming my employment. However, after all he did approve it after telling me I had to begin my career as a simple SS-man. I had already interrupted my connections, and I agreed with that particular clause.
JUDGE MUSSMANO: What happened eventually with your brotherin-law?
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. I am advised that the recording tape has run out, and they will have to start in on a new spool, which we will do at 1:45.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess until 1:45.
(A recess was taken until 1345, 5 June 1947).
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours, 5 June 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
AUGUST FRANK (Resumed) DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. RAUSCHENBACH:
Q. Witness, before the recess I asked you why you were employed as a simple SS man although you had left the regular police as an officer, and you told me the reason had been because members of your family had intermarried with Jews. Will you please explain the details to me?
A. The Court asked me before what the fate of my brother-in-law had been. Let me tell you this in three brief sentences:
I knew my brother-in-law, Philipp Rosenberger, since 1931, that is to say, from a time when I had not yet had any contact with the SS, In the summer of 1932, my sister -- to whom I was like a father, as I explained before --- told me she wished to marry Phillip Rosenberger. I knew Phillip as a very industrious and decent merchant whose family had, for four generations, been living in Dresden, and I agreed to the marriage. I continued my contact with him although it decreased during 1933 and 1936, and I admit that I approached my sister with the idea that she should obtain a divorce from here husband. She told me at the time, "No; I shared the good years with my husband, and therefore I wish to share the less good years with him too."
My brother -in-law and my sister lived in Dresden without interference up to 1939. He was employed in his father's firm, Jewish commercial people had very few prospects of doing good business; therefore, my brother -in-law approached me to help him to emigrate. Once again I admit frankly that I tried to influence my sister again to obtain a divorce and not to share with her husband the uncertain fate of a refugee. However, my sister persisted with her decision and there was nothing I could do. All I did was to help them with their emigration, and the result was that they emigrated to Milan without being interfered with.
From that time onwards I heard very little about them.
My sister told me that her husband had wanted to go to Southern Italy from Milan in order to build up a new life for himself there. Should he not succeed in doing so, he would emigrate to Palestine. where she would follow him later on.
To sum this up from the very scarce news I had from them, my sister heard nothing from her husband for six months and then she received a brief communication that her husband had been arrested by the Italian Secret Police and been put into a camp. I believe, on an island. From that day onwards my sister heard no more from her husband, nor do I believe that she has any news of him now. She is still waiting to hear, but I don't believe there is much hope. Whether my brother-in-law perished in that camp, or whether he was lost on route to Palestine, I am unable to say.
When I escaped in 1945 I wanted to join my sister in Italy in order to hide with her, but I was prevented from doing so for a variety of reasons. Meanwhile, however, I had reestablished contact with my sister and, without my asking her to do so, she gave me an affidavit from the Italian Police, where she confirms more or less what I have told the Court just now.
BY JUDGE MUSMANNO:
Q. Where is your sister now?
A. In Bresano, Italy, together with her child. She is well off; she is employed in a cinema. Her little daughter speaks Italian as well as she speaks German, and she is an interpreter with the British Military Government.
Q Did you have any trouble during the time that you were a Lietuenant General in the SS and Deputy Chief of WVHA, in reconciling your present position, which was committed to persecution, and in some ways, whether you did or did not actively participate in it, to the extermination of the Jews, and the fact that one of this despised race was regarded by you with such high favor that you took him into the bosom of your family and had him marry your sister whom you loved as a child?
A That question is justified. The Reichsfuehrer referred only once to the fact that I had Jewish relatives. That was at the beginning of the war when I was a Major General. At that time, as I shall explain later on, I was purely a soldier, and I said at the time that I had lost contact with my sister, that my sister had emigrated, and that was that as far as the Reichsfuehrer was concerned. As far as the other matters concerning, your Honor, my personal attitude about the question of extermination, might I ask to be allowed to give my answer later on when we reach the document by which I am incriminated in that respect?
JUDGE MUSSMANO: Very well.
BY DR. RAUSCHENBACH:
Q Did you at that time in 1939, when you were an SS leader, did you not endanger your position when you sponsored the emigration of your brother-in-law?
A I think endangering is saying too much. The only thing I had to be afraid of was that the Reichsfuehrer would find out I didn't keep my promise which was to break off all contact with my sister. The emigration as such I sponsored through a method which nobody could find out about. I used intermediary persons for the purpose.
Q Now, what is the explanation of your unusual career? In ten years you were promoted from a lieutenant to a General.
A True. The explanation probably is that I was one of the very few people in the SS who were experts in military administration. Also when I became a Major General I had been a soldier for more than twenty years.
Q Now, I shall refer to your affidavit which is Document NO-1576, and it is Exhibit No. 4. in Document Book I, Page 12 in both the English and the German versions. There you say that by assuming the name of Franz Mueller you managed to stay at large until 17 December 1946.
A Quite right. I was at that time a chief. At the time of the surrender, that is, I was Chief of the Police Administration, or rather the Administrative Police, and in that capacity there were under my direction the police agency at Munich. I was the highest chief, as it were, from a ministerial point of view, for the so-called passport agency, apart from a good many others, such as food police, administrative police, market police, registration police, etc. In that capacity it was an easy thing for me to obtain the necessary paper in the last two days before to the collapse, and armed with that paper I managed to hide for a bit. As I said before, I wanted to go to Italy to join my sister, but I did not succeed in doing so because Austria at that time sealed off its frontiers hermetically, and I had to pass through Austria. It was no longer possible to do so. I stayed near the frontier for some time, and strange to say I was employed by the Americans in a job, they not realizing that I was an SS-Obergruppenfuehrer. Under my assumed name as a simple workman I worked under the Americans for four or five months in a concrete factory. No harm was done to me because although the work was hard and severe I gained insight into the social conditions of a simple workman, one of the most difficult and dangerous professions from a medical point of view.
Q Witness, that, I think, is sufficient about that subject. In the last months of the war did you attempt ever, by using your position in southern Germany, to work towards a premature end of the war?
A No, unhappily I did not. As most of the other defendants here, I am bound to say, or even I may say, that we did not worry about escaping or about deserting.
We did our duty until the collapse, although I personally had been realizing for some time in my position as Chief of the Army Administration, Chief of the German Police Administration, as Chief of the whole of the supply services for German Armed Forces, that the war had been lost for Germany, but my duties in the last days and last weeks were not concerned with saving the issue, but to give the food, the bread, to the soldiers right up to the last day. I believe I shall have an opportunity of saying more about this.
Q Now to talk about something else, up to 1935 in the Administrative Office of the SS you worked on the treasury and budget duties of the Allgemeine-SS?
A Yes. In '33 and '34 up to the summer of 1935 I was working on manifold duties. As I said, there were so few experts working there, apart from Pohl I was practically the only one at the time who knew anything at all of what might be called military administration, and I had to help out everywhere in order to establish the treasury departments, to start the books, and altogether to get the whole thing going from a technical point of view. In '35 Pohl, under whom I was working at the time, told me, I was then chief of a department, "Frank, what you have to do now is to draw up a budget for the so-called SS Special Task Troops." That Special Task Troop, the Verfuegungstruppe, consisted of three battalions at the time. I did so. I drew up the budget in the way I had learned it and submitted it to the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of the Interior. I myself in 1937 was made part of the Special Task Troop with the rank equivalent to that of a Lieutenant Colonel.
Q Will you please explain to the Court what the SS Special Task Troop was?
A The SS Special Task Troop, the Verfuegungstruppe, was maintained at the time as a representative body around the Fuehrer. That is to say, whenever Hitler came to Munich or to Stuttgart or anywhere else, a big city, a battalion or regiment of the Special Task Tropp was used as a parading unit, as a protective and security unit for his personal protection.